EPTResistance 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:31 EchelonTee wrote: oof I'm tempted. I'll do resistance 3 when it comes. Anyways, do you think there is ever a scenario where the leader SHOULDNT send themselves on a team? | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 24 2013 10:52 FirmTofu wrote: 1. You get one chance to vote, so make it count. 2. That is correct, spies cannot communicate with one another at all. (Not even in a quicktopic) We cant change our votes though (unless I misread you rayn) | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 27 2013 10:13 raynpelikoneet wrote: hmm.. okay. Anyways Hopeless, you seem to have played Resistance. Why would you not have an opinion of if the leader should not pick themselves in any situation? I find it hard to believe tbh. I think the leader should ALWAYS pick themselves. Sitting yourself out of a team is like self-voting for a lynch imo. If you know you are of the resistance, you should absolutely be going in your mind. Unless the game has been trivialized because the spies derped and all 3 sabotage the first mission, I think the leader is always going to have a spot on the team. I would vote no on any team that didnt include the current leader for this reason, regardless of what town sentiment was at that time. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 27 2013 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Hi everyone! Glad to see game's finally started :D I agree with rayn. In Resistance 2 I picked BH and VE, two really town seeming guys (I think we even had 2/3 of the scumteam at that point), but I wasn't trustworthy so Sent-BH-VE got rejected. I don't think there's anything scummy about picking 3 people everyone or almost everyone thinks is town, even if you're not one of those 3. Lets suppose at least 1 of those 3 go on to fail a mission. Are you, as leader, culpable in the failure? | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 27 2013 10:37 Adam4167 wrote: It should be a consideration, not a slam dunk. But there is at least one spy on the team, that is concrete information. So you look at the leaders motivations for sending each person on the team. but now, you've coerced a player into doing "town's" bidding without having a clear view of his motive. I find that the vote mechanics serve to control how you view players much better than forcing the teams that people want to see. Since we have up to 5 opportunities to get this done each round, I'd rather be confident in my read of the leader (and subsequently his selected companions) than have to second guess his motives down the road. I'm not saying that each round is going to slam-dunk. I think that the consideration should FOLLOW the team being selected when people vote on it, and the leader should be playing to their optimal scenario. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 27 2013 11:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Wouldn't "optimal" imply a scenario that you have control over, as opposed to the next person in line? I guess optimally would be the team that best fulfills the conditions where the members are all town and Vote consensus=Yay. You have more control over the team selected and less control over the vote consensus. If we're talking in absolutes, then yes - if I know a team with me in it will be rejected, I shouldnt put it up there. However, I am very hesitant to believe the game will get to the point where I assume everyone thinks I am a spy. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 27 2013 12:25 Grackaroni wrote: We definitely need to be willing to vote for missions that don't include ourselves; otherwise, we would just get stuck with the final leader's selection. But, if you think you can feasibly get your team voted through with yourself on it then that is optimal. If 4/5 leaders all look like scum, we got other problems to deal with my friend. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
I don't like the way you've reasoned to have me sit out. When talking about me, the assumption and followup thoughts are about a sabotaged mission. With rayn, you focus on a successful mission, and use the 'what if we fail' scenario to show how you can make yourself super duper townie by catching rayn. I didn't even get a glimmer of hope. That's a pretty hard-ass stance to take against me considering how little your reasoning takes into account my play this game. Why do you assume I will neglect to explain myself? I don't need to be verbose, I need to be transparent. You don't seem to see any value in me as a player based on your reasoning. I dislike that very much, I didn't know how little you thought of me. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
You seem predisposed to the condition that I am going to lurk, and that is a fair assumption since I do it all the time. Since this game has no lynch or death mechanic to deal with lurkers, how do you propose people get concrete information about me? By your own reasoning, players like VE and rayn are going to be able to demonstrate their township through activity and leadership. The mission are a very weak cop-check and could serve to give more information on harder to read players so that the strong/vocal players can develop stronger reads. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 28 2013 00:50 Koshi wrote: No. I don't like that. You send the most townie people on Day 1. But because I doubt that anybody can prove himself 100% town I suggest that the most active people/most respected people go on the first mission. Reasons have been stated. Why I do not want liabilities to go on a Mission 1. Let's say we send Chairman Ray/[UoN]Sentinel/Hopeless on Mission 1 and it fails. What will you do then? One of those is scum but all 3 will probably(?) not have the biggest filter and shit is hard when there are no flips. But then you have your townleaders with the biggest filters (aka rayn/VE/Koshi/...) that don't really know who to trust and what to do. It's not optimal. Let's say that we send rayn/VE/Cora and mission succeeds. Then I know for a fact that 50% of all the post on Day 2 will be made by townies. For a fact. So easy. So nice. That doesnt solve the liabilities. I'm also not suggesting we send a team of 3 tossups, I'm suggesting we send 1 liability to gather information on them since they are unlikely to provide it themselves. As an aside, you do NOT know for a fact that a successful team is 100% town. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
VE get to work. You're up to bat. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On December 29 2013 11:21 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: This leader order is upside-down from what my optimal leader order would be. I disagree. rayn, assuming he's town, is going to be able to push his team like no ones business at a time when the pressure is on for both parties. I'd like to believe rayn can build a solid team when he gets his turn. Guys we should totes approve every team that gets put up so those last guys dont get to be leader huehue. | ||
| ||
